Trade Proposals: July-August

that defense looks horrific, postma is unproven, and stralman is the furthest thing from a top line RD, and why dismantle our defense and take it from imo top 5 in the league to bottom five trading two all star defensemen for a guy u wana plug in at third line left wing? just rediculous

Our D is possibly the best in the league atm, imo.

What is being overlooked is that a stud on the order of Kane, who can help the team not merely compete but dominate (especially on a physically big line). If Canes would prefer to move for big enough overpay, it is reasonable to ask people recognize it is much harder to acquire a guy like Kane, than eventually replace your 2 top defensemen,including in the meantime by adding depth to the backline group w/likes of Olsen, Martinez.

Everybody is focused on nominal gains, e.g. picking up Pyatt v. Fedotenko; I agree to do that whenever that opportunity presents itself.

But don't also be afraid, as I am suggesting to take a step backwards in order to go forwards.

Also, even if this line and not a higher one, you are missing part of the point. These are three heavy duty offensive lines that can press, with intensity, pausing only to have the opposition besieged by a solid checking 4th line, that might also surprise with Hagelin breakaways.

A reasonable impression I grant you, but are you sure? And why is everyone so set that chemistry is soooo inflexible? Who is to say that automatically, the replacements won't have= or even > chemistry (see points on Miller below)? It is true that undeniably this is a very big hit on D off the top, although the middle and bottom should be supplemented with Olsen and Martinez.

Quote:

We also lose a C, and no thank you on Rupp being our 3rd line center, and JT Miller our 2nd line center. There are too many if's and but's to make the final line up actually happen.

It is a big risk even if Miller is pushed to 2nd line if, as seems plausible with Anisimov + Dubinsky both gone there is room for him to make the team if he can grab the brass ring. But a big risk, while genuine, is NOT automatically and inherently unreasonable. So if fortune favors the bold, do not be risk averse just to play it safe; but consider fully the pluses and the minuses.

JT Miller, from what I read on the boards, is really a playmaker with solid basic C skills, not as much a W, preferably. We can't assume he has the same sense of Stepan, but intangibles aside, he is physically more gifted. Yes, there is some time for the NHL learning curve, but there is no reason to think in Miller's case it would be more than minimal.

Miller can skate circles around Stepan. Miller with either Kreider/Hagelin at LW and Callahan on RW is, based on known skating prowess of the group, able to really sustain an uptempo press for a second line. If Stepan isn't traded anyway, and we believe in open competition, Miller should get a shot to excel with these speedy linemates. Miller hopefully will develop quickly, as he has shown to date; Stepan will never be faster, and those particular winger line mates are not slowing down any time soon. So if you believe Callahan + Kreider = 2nd line (given Nash-Richards-Gaborik = 1st line), then Miller is the natural fit for 2C, and helping make this, possibly, arguably an inevitability, happen by design, will accelerate things.

If you accept that, then sure Stepan is a solid 3c with solid, slower line mates (unless Hagelin at 3LW instead of 4LW). But again, Kane is extra special, on the order of a McDonagh or Kreider special, and some acknowledgment of that, and what you have to pay for that, is in order. If you don't think we need another player of THAT talent level, fine that is a separate argument, and I disagree, conditional to the cost and the salary/cap issues.

Quote:

So, in short, I don't agree in giving up 2 strong D, a good young center, and 2 other F prospects, for Kane, who would be a 3rd line, bottom 6 forward in the line up and a right handed D. The team would be more hurt that helped, and that's just on paper, not considering chemistry and other intangibles.

Something more realistic would be,
Kane
for
Hagelin + Thomas + 2nd ?
Honestly, I dunno how high the Jets rate Kane.

The above proposal is not even remotely enough for a player on order of McDonagh/Kreider.

We will score more. We may be more "fun to watch". But the reason why the Rangers had their best season in 15 years was team defense from the net out.

Just no. Hell no.

The objective is to win. This will allow the offense to dominate, so it will be easier on the D --- not easy, but easier. We will get more in offense and scores than what we give up on defense.

That said, I would NOT, in a vacuum, swap out the replacement D for our existing D. But adding a talent on the order of Kreider/McDonagh is a game changer, and it is easier --- not easy, but EASIER --- to pick another 1a/b D than a talent on that order.

The addition of McIlrath/Martinez/Olsen/trade should not be discounted as to helping our middle and bottom and D depth.

And, just saying as to value, you could move McIlrath + Olsen for a #1, if we really had to go that way.

The defense was huge, but we can't unreasonably expect it will carry our offense. We need, like the Canadians of old, like the Rangers of the 70s who would have had 2 cups except for Bobby Orr, who singlehandedly killed us.

I appreciate your appreciation of the status quo.
I ask you consider my vote for accelerated development and improved balance to have a dominate offense and a good and good overall and improving defense over what is currently a great defense and an improving but recently horrendously subpar offense [as recent as last season, for which Nash is the only real addition].

How about this acid test?
Our team takes on the Pens, w/Sid + Malkin having great years. The current Ranger team is 50-50, imo.
The team I suggest should score more readily, perhaps 2G per game as to a normal status, unless Fleury plays unconscious, while with McDonagh still able to shadow and mostly reduce Malkin, we would not give up more than we would score.

im sorry but thats horrendous, Staal is arguably one of our best d-men and eats a crap load of minutes. Secondly, moving Girardi would leave us with no RH dmen. Horrible deal for our defensemen

A fair critique, obviously as to our top pair buh-bye.

But while Martinez+Olsen able to step in right away with McIlrath as stay at home believed to be available this year also, that, which is helped by moving McDonagh, MDZ + Stralman up, helps add to our middle and lower D and depth. And Postma can't hurt, might surprise.

Obviously, I totally agree that if you focus ONLY on D, this proposal is a loser. But if you are open minded and look at it as I request, on balance, the surrender of our top D pair + Stepan + 2 medium prospects = Kane, a talent on order with McDonagh/Kreider, which is what my critiques need acknowledge.

How about we just remain happy that the Rangers got Nash and go with the current crew?

Team can always look to add a player in the yr or promote a Miller / Thomas type

Because it is not wise to be complacent and rest on our laurels and say Nash will be enough. The team needs to be optimized to the best it can be. Staying stagnant (Nash and small upgrades aside) arguably does NOT help our chances.

If Miller cuts the mustard, he deserves to be here.

Same w/Thomas, though I don't think he gets past 4th line if Hagelin on 3rd line -- on my proposed roster Hags is 4th line, so Thomas more likely for trade.

The objective is to win. This will allow the offense to dominate, so it will be easier on the D --- not easy, but easier. We will get more in offense and scores than what we give up on defense.

That said, I would NOT, in a vacuum, swap out the replacement D for our existing D. But adding a talent on the order of Kreider/McDonagh is a game changer, and it is easier --- not easy, but EASIER --- to pick another 1a/b D than a talent on that order.

The addition of McIlrath/Martinez/Olsen/trade should not be discounted as to helping our middle and bottom and D depth.

And, just saying as to value, you could move McIlrath + Olsen for a #1, if we really had to go that way.

The defense was huge, but we can't unreasonably expect it will carry our offense. We need, like the Canadians of old, like the Rangers of the 70s who would have had 2 cups except for Bobby Orr, who singlehandedly killed us.

I appreciate your appreciation of the status quo.
I ask you consider my vote for accelerated development and improved balance to have a dominate offense and a good and good overall and improving defense over what is currently a great defense and an improving but recently horrendously subpar offense [as recent as last season, for which Nash is the only real addition].

How about this acid test?
Our team takes on the Pens, w/Sid + Malkin having great years. The current Ranger team is 50-50, imo.
The team I suggest should score more readily, perhaps 2G per game as to a normal status, unless Fleury plays unconscious, while with McDonagh still able to shadow and mostly reduce Malkin, we would not give up more than we would score.

Consider that.

ok now i know you are just trolling...simply adding kane to the 3rd line playing with mike rupp who isn't even a center is going to increase our offense by 2 goals/game. please just stop

The objective is to win. This will allow the offense to dominate, so it will be easier on the D --- not easy, but easier. We will get more in offense and scores than what we give up on defense.

Adding Nash, and the development of our young core will increase our scoring output. Your proposals constantly have the same theme; moving our core dmen for forwards. Championship teams are usually well balanced. Your proposals will ultimately make us top-heavy, offensive machines, but you're risking quite a few things for that trade-off. Things most people are not comfortable.

Fact of the matter is, we were one of the best teams in the league last season. You don't blow up teams that are on the cusp of winning. Nash is the tweak we need. Not, Nash, and moving 2 of our top 3dmen for various players who will be playing on a third line with Mike ****ing Rupp.

Adding Nash, and the development of our young core will increase our scoring output. Your proposals constantly have the same theme; moving our core dmen for forwards. Championship teams are usually well balanced. Your proposals will ultimately make us top-heavy, offensive machines, but you're risking quite a few things for that trade-off. Things most people are not comfortable.

Fact of the matter is, we were one of the best teams in the league last season. You don't blow up teams that are on the cusp of winning. Nash is the tweak we need. Not, Nash, and moving 2 of our top 3dmen for various players who will be playing on a third line with Mike ****ing Rupp.

Thank you, Boom Boom.

You can't stack a team too top-heavy. Look at the Pittsburgh Penguins. They're gonna suffer this year losing Michalek on D and having no one capable to step in. Not only that, but they downgraded from Staal to Sutter and now you'll see why you can't try to stack too much depth in one area and forsake the others.

That trade is plain awful.
Honestly at this point if we want to 'dominate', we add Shane Doan. That is only worth it depending on cost. I wouldn't personally sign him to more than a two year contract.
Otherwise, trading Girardi and Staal for Kane makes us SIGNIFICANTLY worse. There are much better players that package that you offered would yield. Regardless, it would shoot us in the foot to trade Dman. Especially our only top flight righty.

The only reason to trade a Marc Staal, and I mean the ONLY reason to trade Staal:

Is to UPGRADE your blueline with a guy like Shea Weber. Since that boat has sailed, there is absolutely no reason to move him.

Agree 100%. We'll be reminded of just how good he is when he is actually able to do his rigorous offseason workouts and participate in training camp before this season.

The small holes this team has really equate to a depth forward and a depth dman. Depth forward can be addressed through our system if needed and a depth dman should come very cheap. I am hoping Sauer can make a Staal-like return and in the meantime a Stralman type acquisition could be made if Bickel isn't getting the job done. No reason to trade away anybody else unless a deal is too good to turn down.

1 Thanks to all who replied, which I took as constructive and well intended criticism.

2 We agree to disagree. This team was pitiful, emaciated and inept when it came to scoring. Gaborik temporary unavailability aside, the only significant upgrade is with Nash, and a full season of Kreider. That could be enough with the way this team plays, but maybe not. My vote would be for more scoring under certain conditions.

3 Before elaborating, please recognize the true fact that we can not continue to play like we did last year, with excessive emphasis on D first including too much shot blocking. All that blocking + diving catches up with you. It actually did, as we were too exhausted to put away Ottawa early, which led to fail v NJ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Yet you guys want to keep going down that road.
We need to get a more balanced team by adding more offense AND changing the approach, minimizing the risk of injury.

4 As to "more scoring under certain conditions" I am not saying we trade a guy like Del Zotto for some one like Sykora +. I am saying we go all in for talent on the order of McDonagh or Kreider, which drives up the price for a complete sniper with no issues. We recently had a thread on the main board about Marc Staal to the Canes, and it was the consensus from our side we need to add, but only if Skinner comes our way. Skinner is what we hope Stepan will evolve into, but even then there are limitations on his defense and additionally. Kane is strong enough to single handedly force the issue on plays, creating opportunities for linemates when Kane is double covered.

5 Complaint was made as to Kane winding up as a 3LW. There are other possibilities, some which could have Kane or Nash or Kreider playing off wing with Kane on a higher line. But what is completely ignored by my detractors is how much more domination and time of possession Rangers would enjoy with the CUMULATIVE benefit of Kane AND Nash AND Kreider with linemates establishing dominating lines. The first line adds the skills of Richards and Gaborik with the power and skill of Nash, = domination. Ditto the speed of Kreider - Miller (not Stepan) - Callahan = domination. Also as to power = Kane -Rupp/Yogan - Pyatt = domination.

When 3 lines share the weight, aided by a 4th shutdown line, they can wear down offenses, and earn increased time of possession.

6 Of course, to afford that, heavy payment needs come from somewhere. But it can't come from offense, that's trading coke for pepsi. The point is to add to Kreider/McDonagh, not swap them out. Still, I kept our bluest blue chips, creating more cap room to add if we can swing those elusive Ds.

7 It IS IS IS still a net loss on D, but please do acknowledge that adding Martinez/Olsen/Postma/McIlrath IS an improvement to the middle and lower depth of the backline corps.
Consider: many say McDonagh is our best D right now. He stays your 1a. Staal + Girardi were 2 and 3, with MDZ 4th. MDZ is 2nd, but typically leads the second pair to provide L-R balance. So you bump him from 4th to 3rd. I think he makes that promotion, remaining on 2nd pair, without harm to us. So really problem is moving Stralman from 5 to 2; we have enough to handle 4, 5, and 6, even assuming Sauer does not return. If he does, that's your #2.

But Stralman does not have to be our #2 forever. He just has to hold the fort until an opportunity presents itself for an upgrade. It's too much to hope for the Devils Larsson on the cheap because of their $$$ woes. But we can and will get someone. The sky is falling if the Martians suddenly kidnapped Staal + Girardi + Stepan and there is no offset. Getting Kane principally for those 3 is a hell of an offset.

8 In my scenario, it assumes the Jets are a willing partner. Kane is delivered to us with a moderately long deal, 4-6 years, at good numbers, not a bargain, but good numbers. That is an added factor as to cost, which, alleviating risk, is worth it.

9 There is wisdom in not being impulsive. There is value in being careful. But there is also value in taking prudent chances, and being bold. We got lucky with McDonagh and Hagelin, who we couldn't be sure about when they first got here. Since JT Miller would benefit from more experience no matter where he plays this year, you could make the case we'd be lucky if he made the club out of camp. But lucky or not, he may be that good [as to making the club], and please speak to the fact if having made the club already anyway, it would be smart to unify strengths and put Miller with Kreider and Callahan, even if that means Miller bumps up to #2c.

It's just a hunch, but based on how carefully they have held him out of deals, I would not be surprised to see Miller make the club this year.

In the totality of these circumstances, I still say it's a good deal. I'd love to keep Staal or Girardi + substitute a first, but that won't cut it.

Again, thanks to all, and I'll respond to specific posts as time allows to cover what was not covered above.

The vibe I'm getting here is that we should make the trade because it's "outside the box". Which, of course, is an asinine mentality to have. That's your only rationale when you post this, aside from the jumbled mess you call 'analysis'. No sane NHL GM would trade two top pairing defenseman for a forward that has ONE 30 goal season under his belt, let alone one of them - even that's debatable.

Scoring can win you games, but defense wins championships. Our defense, currently constructed, with the return of Sauer is an embarrassment of riches. Every team in the league would dream of their defense looking like that and the age of that group makes it even more amazing. You do not break up this core on defense unless someone can replace someone on the roster. Right now, the only hope that there is for that is for McIlrath being able to take on 3rd pairing minutes. That does not mean Stu Bickel minutes, that mean 14 minutes a game. I don't know if he can. We know the others can right now.

If there is a trade for this team to make it is not for a winger of Kane's caliber, but someone that can contribute on the 3rd/4th line to make the bottom 6 better. Also, if we are trading for a forward, I believe it will be a center over a winger. Even with the team having Miller, it's not likely he'll be in NY this season. Another year in Plymoth would serve him well, and especially not as the #2 center on a team that wants to win a Cup. Miller not being on the team, unless he earns the right to be, is going to be a good move regardless of whether or not he is ready. Having him on the team regardless could hurt him long term.

We need to acquire ourselves a Rich Peverley type player. Good tweener 2nd/3rd line center than wins faceoffs and can provide good offense. Besides that, this team is set. I'd rather look to more youth to fill in some possible holes. Yogan and Thomas could possibly come up some point in the season and add some skill, and with Yogan, some grit to the bottom 6.

We made our big splash getting Nash. It's time to see if it's going to work out for the better of the team. Gaborik, Nash, Callahan, Kreider, Hagelin, and Pyatt is good for the top 3 lines. If there is a spot for grabs, it's Pyatt's spot. If Yogan or Thomas show they are NHL ready, they can take that spot from him.

This team is not making a deal until a season begins and if they see something that needs to be addressed. An offensive upgrade to Boyle or Pyatt are the likely choices for that.

TL;DR

Not a good trade to make. Keep what we have, move forward. They got this far by developing youth and drafting well. Let's not blow that up in a couple trades.